Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13179 Record ID: 835f3351-0c23-4b5f-b280-75b1aad74599
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Addison, Shay | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Madsen, Lars B | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:04:47Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:04:47Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | No 1 Vol.: 5 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 18338488 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13179 | - |
| dc.format | Pages 45-51 | en |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Australia and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse (A NZATS A) | en |
| dc.title | A Review of the Evidence for the Use of Polygraphy in the Supervision and Management of Community Based Sexual Offenders: An Australian Context | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 12178 | en |
| dc.identifier.url | https://search.proquest.com/docview/1355435479?accountid=12763 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Sex crimes | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Polygraphs | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Supervision | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Correctional treatment programs | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Australia | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Medical Sciences - Forensic Sciences | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Invalid URL | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Sex offenders | en |
| dc.relation.url | http://sirius.library.unsw.edu.au:9003/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Acriminaljusticeperiodicalsshell&atitle=A+Review+of+the+Evidence+for+the+Use+of+Polygraphy+in+the+Supervision+and+Management+of+Community+Based+Sexual+Offenders%3A+An+Australian+Context&title=Sexual+Abuse+in+Australia+and+New+Zealand&issn=18338488&date=2013-05-01&volume=5&issue=1&spage=45&au[cut] | en |
| dc.description.notes | Polygraphy has in recent years been increasingly used in the treatment and supervision of community based sex offenders. In this context the polygraph has two main aims: to enhance treatment and to improve supervision. In terms of the former, it is claimed that polygraphy provides fuller and more accurate information about an offender's history, enabling treatment needs to be better identified and targeted. In respect of supervision, polygraphy is used to assist in monitoring behaviour and adherence to relapseprevention plans, with supporters arguing that it acts as a deterrent to reoffending. The research evidence provides support for some of the claims made by proponents, and in 2012 the United Kingdom (UK) government made polygraph testing mandatory for sex offenders in the community. Polygraphy could well have a place in the supervision and management of high risk offenders in Australia. Particularly so, when considering the development of statutory schemes, such as the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (2003) in Queensland. This article provides an overview of recent advances in the use of polygraphy with sex offenders. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]<br/ >Name - National Research CouncilCopyright - Copyright Australia and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse (A NZATS A) May 2013Document feature - ReferencesLast updated - 2013-05-27SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Australia; Queensland Australia; United Kingdom--UK; United States--USReferencesAbrams, S. (1991). The use of polygraphy with sex offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 239-263.Abrams, S. & Ogard, E. (1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraph, 15, 174-182.Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, M., McKee, B., & English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123-138.American Polygraph Association. (2009, May). APA model policy for post conviction sex offender testing. APA Magazine, 42, 3.Blasingame, G.D. (1998). Suggested clinical uses of polygraphy in community-based sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 37-45.British Psychological Society (2004). A Review of the Current Scientific Status and Fields of Application of Polygraphic Deception Detection. Report (26/05/04) from the BPS Working Party (http://www.bps.org.uk).Buschman, J., Wilcox, D., Krapohl, D., Oelrich, M., & Hackett, S. (2010). Cybersex offender risk assessment. An exploratory study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 197-209.Chambers, H. (1994). Snohomish county juvenile court sex offender treatment programme policy statement on the use of polygraph in treatment of juvenile sex offenders. Interchange, November, 1-6.Consigli, J. (2002). Post-conviction sex offender testing and the American Polygraph Association. In Kleiner, M. (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp.237 - 249). London: Academic Press.Dutton, D. (2000). Post-conviction sex offender testing: An introduction. Polygraph, 29, 1-6.Earls, C.M. & Lalumière, M.L. (2002). A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 83-88.Edson, C. (1991). Sex Offender Treatment. Medford, OR: Department of Corrections.Emerick, R.L. & Dutton, W.A. (1993). The effect of polygraphy on the self-report of adolescent sex offenders: Implications for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 84-103.English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 218-235.English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: Containment approach. American Probation and Parole Association.English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000a). The value of polygraph testing in sex offender management. Research report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Colorado: Colorado Department of Public Safety.English, K., Jones, L., Patrick, D., Pasini-Hill, D., & Gonzalez, S. (2000b). We need you to become experts in the post-conviction polygraph. Polygraph, 29, 44-62.Fieldler, K., Schmid, J. & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313 - 324.Gannon, T.A., Beech, A.R., & Ward, T. (2008). Does the polygraph lead to better risk prediction for sexual offenders? Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 13, 29-44.Grubin, D. (2008). The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 13, 177-189.Grubin, D. (2010). A trial of voluntary polygraphy testing in 10 English probation areas. Sexual Abuse: A journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 266 - 278.Grubin, D. & Madsen, L. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 357-369.Grubin, D. & Madsen, L. (2006). The utility and accuracy of post-[cut] | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2014-07-21 | en |
| dc.publisher.place | Haymarket | en |
| dc.description.physicaldescription | Pages 45-51 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.